[PATCH v7 02/12] KVM: arm64: Use kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs()

[Raghavendra Rao Ananta]

On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:07 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 4:28 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
> > <rananta at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, I'll change it to kvm_arch_flush_vm_tlbs() in v8.
> > >
> > While working on the renaming, I realized that since this function is
> > called from kvm_main.c's kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(). Do we want to rename
> > this and the other kvm_flush_*() functions that the series introduces
> > to match their kvm_arch_flush_*() counterparts?
>
> Hmm, if we're going to rename one arch hook, then yes, I think it makes sense to
> rename all the common APIs and arch hooks to match.
>
> However, x86 is rife with the "remote_tlbs" nomenclature, and renaming the common
> APIs will just push the inconsistencies into x86.  While I 100% agree that the
> current naming is flawed, I am not willing to end up with x86 being partially
> converted.
>
> I think I'm ok renaming all of x86's many hooks?  But I'd definitely want input
> from more x86 folks, and the size and scope of this series would explode.  Unless
> Marc objects and/or has a better idea, the least awful option is probably to ignore
> the poor "remote_tlbs" naming and tackle it in a separate series.
>
Sure, I think it's better to do it in a separate series as well. I'm
happy to carry out the task after this one gets merged. But, let's
wait for Marc and others' opinion on the matter.

Thank you.
Raghavendra
> Sorry for not noticiing this earlier, I didn't realize just how much x86 uses
> remote_tlbs.
>
> > (spiraling more into this, we also have the 'remote_tlb_flush_requests' and
> > 'remote_tlb_flush' stats)
>
> Regardless of what we decide for the APIs, definitely leave the stats alone.  The
> names are ABI.  We could preserve the names and changes the struct fields, but that
> would be a net negative IMO.